I often encounter leaders in companies who have at some point defined a leadership style for themselves and then continued to apply that leadership style consistently. There are authoritarian leaders, cooperative leaders, participative leaders, and even the laissez-faire leaders who, ultimately, don’t actually lead at all.

Appreciation as a Part of Leadership

Leaders often vary their leadership style on a scale ranging between more appreciation and less appreciation, or between lower pressure and higher pressure. Perhaps you, too, have run across leaders who banged their fists on the table, started yelling at people, or maybe even treated them quite disrespectfully. That is unacceptable. In the world of work, we are in a contractual relationship. We are in a work relationship. From my perspective, we are permitted to demand a certain amount of professionalism – especially in connection with leadership.

What approaches do I have as a leader, then, when my employees do not perform, or do not meet expectations regarding behavior?

Directing vs. Delegating

The basic tenet is a minimum level of respectful and appreciative social interaction. This means that falling below the line of minimum respect or minimum appreciation in social interactions is not an option. In the future, vary your leadership behavior not vertically, that is, between higher and lower levels of appreciation, but rather horizontally, between more or less directive leadership behaviors.

The Difference Is This:

• On one end of the spectrum is a very directive leadership style. Here, I give precise instructions, a goal. In addition, though, I also specify for the employee how he or she can or should reach this goal. So not only the “what,” but also the “how.”
• On the other end of the spectrum, I delegate an entire package of work after first setting the goal or the result that should be reached. Then, as leader, I get out of the way and let the person work, because it is possible that this person is actually more competent and knows better how to do something.

Between these two poles – directing and delegating – we again find two intermediate stages, namely “training” and “supporting.” These, too, can be applied according to the situation.

But how do I decide whether I should direct and train or delegate and support?

2 Factors to Help You Decide Which Type of Leadership Is Needed

1. The Demands of the Situation
   Every type of situation in which quick, direct action is required needs leadership that is very directive. Crisis situations are an example of this. Let’s depict the situation with a bit of hyperbole. Think about how the fire department drives to a burning house. Nobody sits in a circle and discusses who should pull the hose from the fire truck prior to putting out the fire. Rather, there are clear directions, clear instructions. Things must be tackled and dealt with quickly and directly. Of course, there is a subsequent debriefing, a follow-up during which, among other things, one makes sure that relationships are once again – or still – intact.
2. Your Employees’ Stages of Development
   The stages of development of your employees can be divided into four levels from low to high, and are defined by two components: the person’s skill, and the commitment that the person shows, or in other words “skill and will.” Both of these factors determine the degree of development or the degree of maturity of the employee.

Factor 1

You lead colleagues at the “low” end of the development scale in a directive fashion. Typically, these are new employees. Most of them possess great commitment, but their skill level is still low. What is needed is clear orientation, certainty, and guidelines to provide employees with the best conditions for their work.

Factor 2

At the “high” end of the development scale for degree of maturity, we find employees with strong commitment and high-level competency. As a rule, these are people who could be promoted to leaders in the future. These are self-starters. They are people whom one must leave to their own devices, because they do their work well and because they know exactly what needs to be done and do it.

“The worst damage that I can do to my orchestra is to give them a clear instruction.” Herbert von Karajan

This quote from the Austrian conductor hits the nail rather precisely on the head! Between the lowest and highest stages of development we have colleagues with a bit of competence and strong commitment, and also colleagues with high-level competence and wavering commitment. 

The Choice of Leadership Style Has a Strong Impact on the Achievement and Performance of Colleagues

Imagine that you have an employee with a high degree of maturity, meaning strong commitment and high-level competence, and you lead this person with a very directive leadership style. The worst-case scenario is that you will be perceived by this person as a “micromanager” and you will demotivate by choosing the wrong leadership style, because this person actually needs maximum room to maneuver.

It works the same the other way around: imagine what it might lead to if you delegate to a person with a low degree of maturity, still lacking high competence and strong commitment. If you give this person maximum leeway to act, you might be overburdening this person, and this employee might have too little guidance and the motivation and commitment could therefore decline. 

Adapting the Leadership Style Situationally

It’s not about choosing one leadership style and sticking to it. And it’s not about applying one leadership style to all employees in the company or on your team, for by doing that, you will really only be effective with particular individuals.

Give yourself time to consider: “Who on my team has which degree of development in relation to competence, in relation to commitment?” Then choose an appropriate leadership style for leading each person on your team so that, in the end, he or she performs as well as possible, manifests his or her individual potential as well as possible, and makes a contribution. 

Turn Affected Parties into Participants

You can even go a step farther and make the issue transparent to your colleagues, discuss it with them and maybe even pose the question: “Which type of leadership would you like for me to use with you in order for you to be able to perform your best?”

By doing this, you turn affected individuals into participants and show a high degree of appreciation in that you include employees in formulating the leadership work.

You may very well not be in agreement with the idea that your colleagues could demand more leeway to act. Then you can agree on a fixed transition phase of three months, for example, in which you have a hands-off approach with your employees. Following this phase, you can examine whether giving them greater room to maneuver is warranted or not. This is how you ensure that you are carrying out your leadership work efficiently and effectively.

I hope that, with this impetus, you increase your personal effectiveness and really take off.